the right wing ethos that boils my blood the quickest is when people drool out shit like ‘play stupid games win stupid prizes’ under a story about some guy getting brutally beaten by police for being at a protest or stealing a dvd
Removed by mod
Right wingers say this about protestors or whistleblowers.
Left wingers say this about forced birthers or antivaxxers.
You with your amazingly void intellect: bOtH SiDeS
Left wingers say this about forced birthers or antivaxxers.
The left wing version is usually about people getting cancelled after saying unwoke things. And the phrasing they usually use is something along “Oh no! It’s the consequences of my own actions!”
Getting fired from your job for calling someone the n word is not the same as getting beaten because a cop think you might have committed a crime
Do you really not understand the difference betweene me calling you an asshole, and being stalked by glowies?
That’s not my point though.
I’m not trying to claim that the “consequences” are the same. The cancel culture thing is more than “being called an asshole” and can ruin or at least severely damage a person’s career, but it’s still not as bad as systematic persecution or abuse of power.
I’m not trying to claim that the “actions” are the same either. Mainly because I think it’s futile - any internet discussion on that topic will be 100% political disposition and 0% actual attempt to analyze the severity of said actions.
I will mention though - risking that merely mentioning this will derail the entire discussion - that both you and @starman2112@sh.itjust.works have each elected to diminish one of these parameters (“calling you an asshole” vs ruining one’s career, and “a cop think you might have committed a crime” vs exercising a politically controversial right). In both cases there was no need for that - in both cases the right-wing practice is worse than the left-wing practice even if you don’t try to manipulate the argument. So why do it?
(this is more aimed at you than at starman. Like I said before - when it comes to the “actions” part, the political bias is very strong, and I can totally see how a conservative would claim that participating in a protest is worse than using racial slurs. Still - that’s no excuse to use a strawman)
But the real point I was trying to make is about the sin shared by both left and right: trying to present the “stupid prizes” or “consequences” as an unavoidable law of nature, where it is in fact the intentional actions of humans trying to punish that behavior. If you think certain actions deserve punishment, stand behind this - don’t try to disguise it as a “consequence”. The punishment is derived from your beliefs, not from the laws of nature.
I mean, you just re-affirmed it is both sides. The difference is that you agree with one of the sides.
There’s a fundamental difference between someone getting hurt trying to fight for their human rights, versus someone getting hurt fighting to take away other peoples human rights.
And they’d probably say the opposite is the case.
Removed by mod
Rule 1
They’d be incredibly stupid – bordering on braindead.
I mean, isn’t that what most sides say about their opponents? Or that they’re evil
The difference is that one group is getting excessively hurt because of government response, which is something that can be changed through policy; while the other gets hurt by their own actions because they’re fucking r******d and thought disregarding a pandemic was a good idea, not because of the response the government might take
Your disagreement can be justified, that doesn’t make it not something said it by both sides.
They’re referring to different things, plus when it’s referred to disproportionate police action, it serves as justification for the police replying with illegal brutality, rather than investigating and punishing police officers who break the law
Yeah, again, they can be different levels of justified, there is still two sides doing it. Celebrating the death of someone evil vs celebrating the death of someone good is still celebrating someones death.
I have great news for you: advances in biomedicine project that you might be able to grow a brain in the next 50 years.
Rule 1
Removed by mod
Different opinions like?
Removed by mod
That’s cause Tucker and Ben are nazis you halfwit.
Removed by mod
Who got beaten by police for stealing a dvd?
Not a DVD theft, but Eric Garner was killed in the altercation of his arrest for selling single cigarettes
A right to remain silent. A right to a competent attorney regardless of ability to pay. A right to due process. A right to a timely trial by a jury of peers. A right to healthy food, shelter, healthcare, and other accommodations while incarcerated. I’m probably missing a few.
The right to a fair wage while imprisoned. Or else your justice system only serves to produce slaves.
Slavery is legal in prisons here in the U.S.
Yes, precisely.
written into the constitution
That’s why the rights of people today shouldn’t be dictated by a document written over a century ago. Idolizing a document over human rights is terrible.
Idolizing a document over human rights is terrible.
Well, to be clear, human rights, other than being a vague philosophical concept, are also a document. Much younger, and much more sensible and uncompromising, but still also a document.
Hopefully if new rights are deemed to be needed, they can be added.
I mean, if a document has specific rights written on it and society moves forward and has need for new rights to be added then we should be ready to rewrite and add rights as opposed to treating the document as divine and unchangeable.
Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
- George Santayana
That’s the full quote that people like to reduce to the final sentence.
Documents are a species’ way of remembering the past and establishing core ideals so that future generations don’t have to reinvent those wheels.
Not to say any given document is without flaws or captures the right values, and as our societies grow and mature so too should the values that we align ourselves with.
Sadly. We should change that, but you-know-who would be against it, like they had been throughout the nation’s history.
Should they then also pay rent in prison? :D (not serious)
Oh boy, let me tell you about pay-for-stay.
At $249 per day, prison stays leave ex-inmates deep in debt - AP News (2022)
Essentially, that already happens. They get charged for rent. And food. And medical care. And whatever else can be charged.
Ok not funny anymore. What a dystopia! Thanks for the info.
I know you’re not being serious, but for the sake of the argument, if we’re going to force a person, against their will, to be in a certain place for a certain amount of time then we should have to cover all the basic needs that that person may have.
The right to vote, regardless of criminal convictions or incarceration.
Prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. It’s one of the most fundamental rights that criminals have and it must constantly be revisited to ensure we aren’t brushing aside the cruelty we’re simply accustomed to
deleted by creator
Absolutely. The right say they’re pro-freedom but they’ll strip you of the right to vote if you smoke weed.
Coincidentally one of the reasons that led to the prohibition of cannabis.
Who smoked weed? Black people, brown people, and when the war on drugs really ramped up…hippies.
Nowadays most rational people realized the war on drugs was bunk and people of all walks and colors smoke weed.
I doubt it’s a coincidence that the states that haven’t decriminalized yet are the ones that still love to hassle PoCs and hippies the most.
It was Mexicans too. It’s where the “lazy Mexican sleeping in the shade” comes from.
If you’re willing to question cannabis legality maybe look at other drugs too. Coca leaves were chewed by native tribes millennia ago to help with long journeys. Kratom was used in Asia to help with long harvest days. Celts were eating shrooms millennia ago.
Humanity has a LONG history of drug use with nothing off-limits and there was no societal collapse from it. It’s the past century puritan ideals that are a serious aberration.
Did you know it’s statistically more dangerous to go horse riding than take Molly? The toilets in the UK Parliament were tested for cocaine and all tested positive. No drug should be illegal.
Ref:
- Chasing the Scream - Johann Hari
- Drugs Without the Hot Air - Prof David Nutt
I love how stereotypical Mexicans are portrayed as both lazy and hard working at the same time.
They also didn’t have highly processed drugs. I think the war on drugs is bad but this isn’t a good argument.
Which is why I refuse to call it ‘marijuana.’ It’s a word making it sound Spanish and therefore a threat from down south. It’s from Asia, not Latin America. The name, in English, makes no sense- unless you want to demonize it.
I didn’t actually know that but I suspected it, with indica being one of the two most familiar species.* It was actually a shower thought I had last night, just before I ultimately forgot to take an edible (or ultimately didn’t bother because tbqf these gummies are just revolting).
*I thought sativa might have indicated a south Asian origin but that is actually just the Latin for “cultivated”.
The plant originated in an area that is located in what we call
AfghanistanTibet. According to the Hindu faith, Shiva has to smoke some every day, so he didn’t get mad and destroy the universeActually the earliest known plant was around Tibet 2 million years ago.
Gotcha, will edit.
John Ehrlichman literally admitted it. https://www.vera.org/reimagining-prison-webumentary/the-past-is-never-dead/drug-war-confessional
That’s a very good way of putting it. Reminds me of the developments in Russia.
You mean how Putin killed Navalny? Yes.
Yes, but not only that. His murder is emblematic of a general culture of taking away the rights of people who do not fall in line with the regime.
Countries that are known for corruption often have massive bureaucracies that are full of little seemingly inconsequential laws that most people can safely ignore all the time. The result is that nearly everybody’s breaking some rule just to function with some level of efficiency in society. In fact if you wanted to follow every rule it would break you.
The result is that whenever a vengeful government official wants to bring someone down all they have to do is investigate for a few minutes and figure out which is the most recent rule that was broken and poof that person’s a criminal.
This is why “you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide” is a fallacy. They could invent a reason to get rid of anyone they don’t like because the law is convoluted on purpose.
The great thing about Florida is that the people voted to give them the right to vote back after prison but Republicans in the state’s Congress hated that and did everything they could to stop it.
While voting rights CAN be restored, they ensured that the process to accomplish it was a Byzantine maze that could not be navigated. I don’t just mean it’s hard, I mean it’s impossible because some of the requirements can’t be met (eg they can’t pay all court costs if the government doesn’t know, or won’t say, the amount owed).
Fuck the will of the people I guess.
Your first problem was being in the South. Your second problem was expecting a red state to give rights to people. They’re pretty big on taking them away. Nothing “Civil” about it.
Just for reference everyone reading has almost definitely committed multiple felonies. Three felonies a day was published 13 years ago, and while the title might be exaggerated, the argument is even more true today.
Flordia voters passed a constitutional amendment in 2018 that ended felony voting prohibitions and the state just ignored it.
Give everyone the right to have rights.
That’s actually a classic blunder. If you give everyone rights then that implies that they can be taken away
There are definitely additional levels of tyranny.
Some are are simply called HOA
And all need to be subdued.
That’s what a criminal would say
/s just in case.
What is your plan to manage crime without limiting the rights of criminals?
Same thing as before, just dont block them from voting, serving jury duty, healthcare, jobs, etc after release, prison fees be damned.
You’ll get life, most of it, or execution for murder, rape, significant theft, etc regardless.
Besides, limiting their rights creates more crime, as it locks away job opportunities that would help discourage stealing or killing plus gives them no incentive to work with police & government. If they move to crime again, lock em up again but for much longer. Not hard.
Does that work for you?
You’re not describing a criminal, that’s an ex-convict
Tell that to “ex-convicts” who can’t vote.
Can’t believe you’re being downvoted. “Same as before…execution for significant theft”
Oh but ok, it’s cool, we’ll have voting rights after. No way someone could be reclassified as a capital criminal via the exact mechanism in the OP.
I mean it’s laudable to not make permanent second class citizens, but it misses the point that you can toss people in a horrendous prison system if your prison system isn’t designed for rehabilitation or treating people with dignity.
Ok, so i didn’t dot every I & cross every T when i was responding to the guy. The OP was talking about when you exit jail, but while in it, but fair enough regardless.
What i basically was saying is the current legal system already hands out verdicts, punishments, & whatnot. The person i was responding to likely doesn’t doubt those, so he shouldn’t doubt them just because people’s rights as humans will be respected.
So not allowing someone to serve jury duty is limiting their rights, but its not limiting their rights to imprison of execute them? Also, even after being freed some people should have less rights. I don’t care how much time a pedophile served, they should never be allowed to work anywhere near children. A drunk driver shouldn’t be able to drive again for a long time.
Properly dealing with crime forces you to revoke some people’s rights at least temporarily. I’m ok with trying to minimize that after time is served, but there is no changing that.
Working with kids and driving are not inalienable rights, those are privileges bestowed upon you by the state…
Made a 5 page response at first literally citing the Universal Declaration of Human rights, but others who responded when i was done did much better at explaining, so I will just add:
There’s no reason to stop inmates from voting except for preconceived notions that they are any less human or competent than anyone else. I promise you they aren’t.
Jury duty? There are already exemptions. Add in prison.
Just being on someone else’s property, whether the government, a school, store, etc is a priviledge.
Same with having a job, much less at a type of institution. My awful vision means i am unable to work in the military. Working in the military was never a right in the first place. Nor is working near or at children’s institutions.
Driving is a priviledge. Visit a city with good public transit, cycleways, & ample walkways & this will be made obvious. If driving feels like a necesity & thus a right, then that’s a problem with your city, but i digress…
Forced labor in prison camps? Basically indentured servitude. Should be voluntary otherwise you lose benefits, nothing like toilets or clothes or food & water for example.
Can’t restrict their ability to read books & learn.
No civil asset forfeiture except to pay off charges from trial (fraud, miney laundering, theft, etc), she even so, when they leave they should be returned a check or cash value equivalent to everything they once owned, minus charges from verdict of course. Otherwise it literally becomes police sponsored theft.
Look dude, its very simple. Putting people in prison is limiting their rights. Therefore, punishing criminals requires limiting their rights to some extent. You don’t need multiple paragraphs, and you certainly don’t need 5 pages.
Look dude, it’s very simple: some rights of criminals need to be restricted for practical reasons. Most don’t, and those that don’t shouldn’t be.
Exactly, that’s what I’m saying.
Ok good. I don’t think anyone is really arguing otherwise except for the most hardcore anarchists, who seem like generally unreasonable people. (Like, you’re not going to stop anyone from doing whatever they want? What if what they want to do is create a government that enforces its will on everyone?)
Let’s say you’re correct: ( ignoring that prison isn’t a right, but a punishment invocable by breaking law) that’s the only right that should be limited. It doesn’t justify removing any other right. Do you agree with that?
Yes, although I think imprisoning someone is limiting more than just one right. And if you don’t count restrictions like not being able drive as a right being limited, then I would agree.
Imprisonment except for life imprisonment is limited in time. It is based and justified on the purposes of criminal punishment. So limiting their rights for the limited time of their punishment is justified and necessary, but not afterwards. Also with capital punishment there is a reason why developed countries have outlawed it.
Punishment in a state of law typically has these purposes: deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, retribution, and restitution
Deterrence comes from the threat of imprisonment or in smaller cases, fines, social work etc.
Incapacitation is given through prison sentences. There is cases where the person is deemed to dangerous to be left out afterwards, so some countries have the institution of preventive detention. It is distinctly different from imprisonment though, because it should not serve as continued punishment. There can be non detentive incapacitations necessary. E.g. sbd. who has molested children would also be barred from working with children after he served his sentence.
Rehabilitation is often negelected in the US and other countries. If the person is to be released after their sentence, the sentence should prepare them from being able to become a law abiding member of society. Taking away their rights to vote and other measures are keeping them out of society, and contradict rehabilitation.
Retribution is the prison sentence. For it to be just, the person has served its retribution with the sentence.
Restitution has to be decided by the court, for how it is possible to compensate the victims. But the victims are not compensated by a permanent discrimination against the perpetrator.
You are literally describing my entire point. Limiting the rights of criminals is justified to some extent.
deleted by creator
Do you have any idea what rights are we talking about? This is the right for dignity, eatable food, meds, beds, etc.
The goal should be reducing criminality, right? So criminals should have the chance to reeducation and to go back to society. This can only be assured by law, with RIGHTS.
Those who disagree are the capitalist pigs who profit for incarcerating the poor, without any obligation for decent food, medications and lodging.
So I don’t think those are the rights OP is referencing exactly. Criminals should absolutely have the right to the things you mentioned, but I think OP was referencing more the right to vote, hold office, etc. In some states (and countries throughout history) those with felony equivalent convictions lose access to civic related rights. This severely limits their ability to participate in and therefore influence political and civic discourse and direction.
Yeah but, how can they fight for the rights I mentioned without the rights you mentioned?
Yeah I remember this post on tumblr and you’re right about what they meant.
No, look at the username in the image. The OP is referring to the right to own guns.
Do you have any idea what rights are we talking about?
I’m sure there’s more than a few people in here talking about gun ownership.
Yeah I agree, but don’t you think its limiting someone’s rights to imprison them in the first place? That’s my entire point. Every method of reducing criminality other than simply ignoring it requires you to limit the rights of criminals.
Imprisonments takes freedom away from you. That is the price you pay.
Still, it doesn’t make you less human. It shouldn’t.
Imprisonment is not a right, its a control system of the state. They should be the only party allowed to incarcerate, but when they sell it to private corps they can profit from it and it becomes a business, and this is the reason of all our discussion here.
No that has nothing to do with our discussion. Imprisoning someone inherently limits their rights. I didn’t say imprisonment was a right, I’m not sure where you got that from. The point is that imprisoning people is necessary, so limiting the rights of criminals is necessary.
“cRiMe” is not the issue, the unmet needs of people that motivate them to circumvent the system are the issue
No, crime is the issue. I get your point but meeting peoples needs won’t just end crime somehow. It will drastically reduce it, but it will always be an issue.
I’m generally against cops and “tough on crime” measures but you only have to look at a few high profile criminals to see that some extremely destructive crimes are committed by people whose every conceivable material need is met. Trump in particular is a great example. He’s also a great example of what happens certain crimes are not prosecuted.
Adding to what I have read in other comments: access to a free attorney, good prison conditions, possibility do work again after paying for the crime
But the long arm of the law can’t possibly be tyrannical! 🦖
Doing the Elon Musk “Well if you argue with me then you must be a pedophile” to justify locking up half of Twitter.
Yes, criminals should have rights. But those rights aren’t all necessarily the same as those of non-criminal citizens. And when the rights of victims are trampled on in the guise of protecting criminal rights, there’s a problem.
What if I told you that in a sufficiently corrupt system, the victims and criminals are mostly the same people.
You would convince me that your thinking processes have been muddied because you’re bringing something that, insofar as it is true, is entirely irrelevant.
I disagree with the conclusion. This makes a better case for separation of power so the person in charge can’t look up the opposition
Swiss chees model of
accidenttyranny prevention
Governments are imperfect systems, you wanna have redundancies over redundancies. What you are saying is kinda like “I don’t think we need separation of power, we just need to get the laws just right so noone can break their election promises and abuse their power”.
As cheese layers go, not having a way of permanently stripping people of rights, and stripping prisoners of as few rights as possible temporarily, is a pretry solid cheese layer. In governments, it’s relatively easy to introduce laws targeting critical systems of balance like protesting, because governments have to change laws as one of their main functions. Separation of power is nice, it limits bad (vague) laws, and allows implementing tiers of importance in laws like constitutional laws being harder to override than regular laws, among many other benefits. But if protesting is allowed in the cpnstitution, criminalize making noise yaknow.This. If you are deliberating between several precautions that avert the same catastrophe, stop deliberating - just use all of them. Having to pick between precautions is only a problem if they are conflicting somehow, or if you have a limited “budget” - and neither is the case here.
What do you mean by separation of power? :)
As in, independent judical system, I would presume. Eg in the US, I believe, the president can put his guy as a supreme judge, but cannot remove him and cant really tell them what to do. On the other hand, in Russia, every time a major case happens, somewhere, a law school graduate shoots their brains out, as everything they learned in those years gets publicly humiliated and disregarded at a whim of crooks in power.
So you want to say killing Navalny in prison is ok?
Read the username on the picture. The “rights” discussed are the right to own guns.
But here’s the thing, a tyrannical government doesn’t let the opposition out of jail. Curtailing rights is a dumb way to look at things because that doesn’t happen.
Consider the January 6th insurrectionists. Should any one of them be allowed to own a firearm? No. It’s not tyrannical to think that.
Should they be allowed to vote? Yes.
Should they be thrown in prison forever? No.
Rightwing black and white definitions are stupid, don’t fall for them. It’s not “always the case” that someone losing a right is sufficient for a tyrannical government.
Navalny shouldn’t have been thrown in prison in the first place. It wasn’t his loss of access to guns that made it possible for Putin to murder him in prison.
The “rights” discussed are the right to own guns.
Maybe context was about one specific right, but in Russia prisoners can’t communicate with outside world. The only way for Navalny to communicate was filing lawsuits. Because when lawsuit is filed he can talk with his lawyer and can say during court.
Should they be allowed to vote? Yes.
You forgot be elected. In Russia even if you only were in prison, but now isn’t, you still can’t be elected. You simply cannot get into ballot, so nobody can vote for you.
